kylemittskus

jawlz wrote:I am generally libertarian minded, but I would not go this far...

What do you think the gov't should cut, if anything. I see a few things that should immediately be cut. The postal service is a money pit and there are already private entities that could handle the transition. Education is one that I think needs privatization. Again, we're pouring money into it and it's getting worse. It would be a harder transition, but there is some private systems already in place.

I completely understand that in practicality, complete privatization isn't feasible. However, I think that we need to move some things that way. And the rest of the things need to shrink. I can think of very few things that should be overseen by the BIG gov't. Interstate highways, I do think, would be one of the few candidates.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother

ERMD wrote:After much thought, maybe the liberals are correct. I think I will go to half time so I am not in a higher tax bracket, not put away for retirement and let the socialist govt. take care of me when I get older.
Where's Rob ( RPM) when you need him.

How many thousands of dollars per hour gets billed for your work?

And IMnsHO the problem in California is the direct democracy. Californians are WAYYYYY too stupid to handle it. (It's ok, I think the same is true of any state)

canonizer

jawlz wrote:Eh.... I don't know that this would be a big deal either way *if* California government was functional. But given how incredibly dysfunctional it is (it is difficult for those who don't live here to really appreciate how incredibly bad things are here, and how incredibly free Sacramento is with money - even money it *doesn't have*), having a control on how quickly a tax can increase is fine with me. Let's keep in mind that, adjusted for inflation, California receives a significantly *larger* amount of tax revenue than it did in the 50s and 60s when it was a model for how a state government could provide a number of really very high-quality services (infrastructure, education, etc). Had RPM not abandoned this thread, I imagine he could provide many historical anecdotes that bear this out. Suffice it to say, at the heart of the matter, California's problems are not revenue based; they are social and policy based. (And given California's love of debt, I don't know that its problems can be solved by simply starving the beast, but then I am quite pessimistic about politics in general at the moment.)

That said, I do not think it is equitable to have different property tax rates based on when a property was bought, though I would stop short of saying that it is *unfair*, for reasons already stated by Mark.

I haven't read anyone's comments on property taxes but I'd point out that owning a valuable house does not specifically make someone wealthy. And assessing people at present rates would have a devastating effect on many communities, forcing longtime members to relocate. Escalators usually reflect this to some extent.

rjquillin

bhodilee wrote:I KNOW, it's maddening right? And I think the whole Prop13 thing is starting to finally seep in. It's just SO different than the model I"m used to that my brain says, That can't possibly be right.

P-tax bill...
Assessment is on total of land + improvements, not just improvements (house).
So my 1% is just shy of $4k, add to that
Voter approved bonds, already vented on this,
elementary ~ $150
high school ~ $250
community college ~ $125
health care district ~ $80
metro water (I have a well) ~ $15

Fixed charge assessments:
CSA 69 emergency ambulance $49.50
Fire district Special tax $40
(I just got an additional bill for yet another special assessment not included here for $150)
vector disease control $5.86
MWD water standby charge (Where's the Football??) $14.38
CWA water availability $12.50

That's ~ $750 over the base assessment, $900 if you count the extra fire tax.

So, the only 'protected' portion that is covered by P13 is the ~4k, they just keep piling on with the other stuff.

Oh, and now it's proposed to triple our auto registration fees. $200 -> $600/year.
A sales tax increase was just passed.
Additional bonds were just passed.
CA now has CAP-N-TAX for carbon credits.
We have additional tax/fees coming into play with O'care.

bhodilee

The best part is how the Teamsters were PISSED at the Baker's union. All of those brands will be bought. You won't lose Twinkies and Ho-Ho's forever, much to the detriment of every Diabetes Doctor's checkbook.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

kylemittskus

bhodilee wrote:The best part is how the Teamsters were PISSED at the Baker's union. All of those brands will be bought. You won't lose Twinkies and Ho-Ho's forever, much to the detriment of every Diabetes Doctor's checkbook.

We need a union to fight the unfair practices of the unions!

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim

rjquillin wrote:P-tax bill...
Assessment is on total of land + improvements, not just improvements (house).
So my 1% is just shy of $4k, add to that
Voter approved bonds, already vented on this,
elementary ~ $150
high school ~ $250
community college ~ $125
health care district ~ $80
metro water (I have a well) ~ $15

Fixed charge assessments:
CSA 69 emergency ambulance $49.50
Fire district Special tax $40
(I just got an additional bill for yet another special assessment not included here for $150)
vector disease control $5.86
MWD water standby charge (Where's the Football??) $14.38
CWA water availability $12.50

That's ~ $750 over the base assessment, $900 if you count the extra fire tax.

So, the only 'protected' portion that is covered by P13 is the ~4k, they just keep piling on with the other stuff.

Oh, and now it's proposed to triple our auto registration fees. $200 -> $600/year.
A sales tax increase was just passed.
Additional bonds were just passed.
CA now has CAP-N-TAX for carbon credits.
We have additional tax/fees coming into play with O'care.

MarkDaSpark

Prop 13 was passed because the Poli-ticks couldn't keep there hands off the PT revenue, and kept raising it.

Because Prop 13 was passed, the Poli-ticks had to find new ways to over-spend. So they figured they could add assessments.

If Prop 13 is overturned, not only will PT go up, but the assessments will stay.

We need something to tie their salaries into the Budget/Debt issue. The more Debt and the higher the Budget, the less they make (in fact, they should owe money). The lower the Debt and Budget, they get their full salary.

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

tommythecat78

We need something to tie their salaries into the Budget/Debt issue. The more Debt and the higher the Budget, the less they make (in fact, they should owe money). The lower the Debt and Budget, they get their full salary.

I wonder how long it would take for things to get straightened out if this were the way things were. Then again, most likely, programs would just get no funding in order to make up for budget shortfalls.

bhodilee

Prop 13 was passed because the Poli-ticks couldn't keep there hands off the PT revenue, and kept raising it.

Because Prop 13 was passed, the Poli-ticks had to find new ways to over-spend. So they figured they could add assessments.

If Prop 13 is overturned, not only will PT go up, but the assessments will stay.

We need something to tie their salaries into the Budget/Debt issue. The more Debt and the higher the Budget, the less they make (in fact, they should owe money). The lower the Debt and Budget, they get their full salary.

How much do they make? Ours make like 13k a year and can't vote themselves raises. They can vote raises to be on the ballot, but hardly ever passes. I voted for it though. They only wanted to go to 24k, hardly extravagant. The county commissioners in one of the counties make 27k and meet once a month.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

MarkDaSpark

bhodilee wrote:How much do they make? Ours make like 13k a year and can't vote themselves raises. They can vote raises to be on the ballot, but hardly ever passes. I voted for it though. They only wanted to go to 24k, hardly extravagant. The county commissioners in one of the counties make 27k and meet once a month.

As of 2012, members of the California legislature are paid $95,291 per year. They are also given per diem of $142 per day in session. In 2012, the Legislature is in session from January 4 to August 31 (election year). In 2011, they were in session from January 3-September 9, with two 10 day recesses. But not sure if the recesses count against the per diem, because technically, I believe they are still "in session".

The California Citizens Compensation Commission (CCCC) voted in 2009 to reduce the salaries of California's state legislators by 18%, from $116,208 to $95,291. The Senate President Pro Tem (Democrat) only recommended a 5% cut in 2009. ($113,098/year in 2007.}

Even with the 2009 reduction to an annual salary of $95,291, California's legislators earn more than state legislators in the other 49 states. Michigan, which has the second best-paid lawmakers, pays its state legislators $79,650 a year.

California does not provide pensions for legislators who took office after 1990.

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim

California is definitely a special state. It seems (from an outsider perspective) that you have tons of rules to follow. I miss that about where I grew up, not many rules there, and so cheap to live there it's damn near free.

Was it RPM who was always saying if you don't like the crap your state is doing, vote with your feet? He's not here now to correct me, but I thought he used to say that. Maybe it was someone else? It was in the context of personal liberties, but if it's okay for the state to stomp on your personal liberties, it can also stomp on your economic liberties. Love it or leave it.

edlada

chemvictim wrote:California is definitely a special state. It seems (from an outsider perspective) that you have tons of rules to follow. I miss that about where I grew up, not many rules there, and so cheap to live there it's damn near free.
Was it RPM who was always saying if you don't like the crap your state is doing, vote with your feet? He's not here now to correct me, but I thought he used to say that. Maybe it was someone else? It was in the context of personal liberties, but if it's okay for the state to stomp on your personal liberties, it can also stomp on your economic liberties. Love it or leave it.

Yes, well sometime hypocrisy, it is very strong in this thread. As in; Sure I am a libertarian, as long as it is my liberty we are taking about! I will never forget one of the biggest self professed libertarians on these boards whining about why the cost of apartments in NYC was so high that on his entry level salary he couldn't afford to live there and why didn't the government do something about that!

Bottom line, if you don't like California, well, there are 49 other states to move to.

klezman

chemvictim wrote:California is definitely a special state. It seems (from an outsider perspective) that you have tons of rules to follow. I miss that about where I grew up, not many rules there, and so cheap to live there it's damn near free.

Was it RPM who was always saying if you don't like the crap your state is doing, vote with your feet? He's not here now to correct me, but I thought he used to say that. Maybe it was someone else? It was in the context of personal liberties, but if it's okay for the state to stomp on your personal liberties, it can also stomp on your economic liberties. Love it or leave it.

That thought definitely came up multiple times, and I think rpm may have been among its advocates. Regardless, I've never found that to be entirely accurate. You can only go where you can find a job that will pay you enough to live the way you want to (insert caveat here). These decisions always require trade-offs. For example, I have a fantastic opportunity at my startup company, but it required me to move to Los Angeles. Not something I ever wanted to do, but sometimes (usually? always?) you go where the work is - not where you'd ideally go if all the stars aligned.

chemvictim

klezman wrote:That thought definitely came up multiple times, and I think rpm may have been among its advocates. Regardless, I've never found that to be entirely accurate. You can only go where you can find a job that will pay you enough to live the way you want to (insert caveat here). These decisions always require trade-offs. For example, I have a fantastic opportunity at my startup company, but it required me to move to Los Angeles. Not something I ever wanted to do, but sometimes (usually? always?) you go where the work is - not where you'd ideally go if all the stars aligned.

I get that. I usually think of it in context of poor people and personal liberties. Tired of being treated like a second-class citizen? Just move! Bwah ha ha ha ha. State's rights!

Of course, economic considerations come up as well. I just want to hear the people who yell "state's rights!" about personal liberty also embrace state's rights in the context of economic liberty. I might be waiting awhile. lol

bhodilee

MarkDaSpark wrote:As of 2012, members of the California legislature are paid $95,291 per year. They are also given per diem of $142 per day in session. In 2012, the Legislature is in session from January 4 to August 31 (election year). In 2011, they were in session from January 3-September 9, with two 10 day recesses. But not sure if the recesses count against the per diem, because technically, I believe they are still "in session".

The California Citizens Compensation Commission (CCCC) voted in 2009 to reduce the salaries of California's state legislators by 18%, from $116,208 to $95,291. The Senate President Pro Tem (Democrat) only recommended a 5% cut in 2009. ($113,098/year in 2007.}

damn

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

bhodilee

cmaldoon wrote:But what do you have to do to put a toe in the ocean or foot on a rock over 5500ft?

I agree that there are many ways california is broken though. One takes the good with the bad. I never have to look at the "ships to" states list for example.

I get on a plane and in a few hours I'm there. The world is very very small anymore.

And, Nebraska is anything but flat. The portion that I-80 cuts through is flat (good choice for an interstate route eh?), the rest of the state has some quite rugged areas, though nothing you'd call a mountain.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

Put it this way (this is just an example), current Budget is 500 Billion. R's want it to be 450B next year, while D's want it to be 750B. So the compromise is that it will be 600B (the D's "cut" 150B).

However, with addendums, it goes back up to the original 750B. So where is the compromise???

The R's are the Charlie Brown's, trying to lower the debt (kick the football), while the D's are Lucy, who keeps pulling the football away.

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

jawlz

kylemittskus wrote:What do you think the gov't should cut, if anything. I see a few things that should immediately be cut. The postal service is a money pit and there are already private entities that could handle the transition. Education is one that I think needs privatization. Again, we're pouring money into it and it's getting worse. It would be a harder transition, but there is some private systems already in place.

I completely understand that in practicality, complete privatization isn't feasible. However, I think that we need to move some things that way. And the rest of the things need to shrink. I can think of very few things that should be overseen by the BIG gov't. Interstate highways, I do think, would be one of the few candidates.

Entitlements (social security, medicare, etc) should be dialed WAY back, all the redundancies in government should be eliminated, federal education funding should be eliminated or SUPER reduced (education is a state issue, not a federal one), miltary spending should be cut back by a decent amount, etc etc. There is a ton to cut. I just don't think that everything should be eliminated or completely privatized.

mother

bhodilee wrote:CNN is reporting that the hacker group anonymous has declared "cyberwar" on Israel. I'm not going to comment further for fear of getting my life hacked to pieces. But you can look it up if you'd like.

jawlz

bhodilee wrote:CNN is reporting that the hacker group anonymous has declared "cyberwar" on Israel. I'm not going to comment further for fear of getting my life hacked to pieces. But you can look it up if you'd like.

They've certainly come (or regressed? depends on who you talk to I suppose) a long way since their war on Scientology.

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.